Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

No. As I understand it, in that silly example, the gun seller has a legal obligation not to sell and report to the police what the person said.

Here's a better one, counselor.

Man walks into a realtor's office, realtor is a devout Evangelical Christian.

Guy wants to buy land to build a home for gay children, thrown out by their families after they came out.

Does the realtor sell the land?

 

It's not a silly example. You don't even understand the parallel.

And don't call me "counselor."

We either have this conversation on the level or we don't. It's hitting below the belt to start making digs at people's jobs.

 

FWIW, the NM photographers tried to argue the same thing and consistently lost on this point.

 

Dog Totally Loses It After Owner Returns From 2 Years Abroad

 

I'm just not sure why we can't disagree with the photographer, or the owners of the pizza parlor, but also not view them as horrible people, who deserve to lose their business, and be subjected to death threats.

Only three years ago, the President of the United States' position was the gays shouldn't be able to marry at all. He referred to his religious faith as informing his opinion, and his opinion -- and actions/lack of actions -- had a big impact on the issue.

Yet, no one thought his opinion made him unqualified to serve in office. He wasn't demonized for his opinion, or the justification behind it.

But, fast forward three years, and a religious family from BFE Indiana who haven't evolved on the same timeline as out President are held out as the greatest example of bigotry in America since the end of slavery.

 

It wasn't taking a dig and it is a silly example.

You are trying to take two very different things and twist them into a rhetorical pretzel to make them the same for your argument to work.

 

No, it's not a silly example.

Amy said that it doesn't implicate the person's objection to cater a gay wedding, because it doesn't equal approval to do so.

A buyer walks into a gun shop.

"I'd like to buy a gun. I'm going to kill my wife with it."

Does the gun salesman, who is against murder morally, have a moral obligation to not sell him the gun, therefore?

 

1) People objected to black skin and integration of races due to their religious beliefs. This is the same thing.

2) Nudism is a choice.

3) Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you speak of basing lawful obligations on personal beliefs as wrong in the case of the nudists, but ideal in the case of Christianity.

That's where my objection starts. Christians are no MORE entitled to lawful protection of their beliefs than anyone else.

 

We have friends whose family owns a local bakery.

Several years ago they were asked to make cakes shaped liked dicks for a gay bachelor party. They refused.

Shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

 

It is! You're right!

This is exactly what I'm getting at.

I'm sure they pointed to passages in the Bible that they thought counseled against the integration of the races.

Christianity, therefore, had to abandon that interpretation.

That's what has to happen here, as well.

 

Yes.

But they aren't rejecting the business based on sexual orientation, necessarily, but exercising free speech. They don't want to make that particular cake.

 

Now my religious rights are being trampled.

My stupid neighbors are complaining to the Homeowners Association about my Easter decorations.

I mean, what could be more appropriate for the yard on Easter weekend than three half-naked guys nailed to crosses?

Help me, Indy!